Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

Reading all the notes from the Bordeaux trip, I keep seeing that you guys have tried lots from the recent vintages. I haven't had much post-2005 myself.

Is a BWE consensus developing on the best vintage from 2006-2014 and/or a ranking of these years?

Do 2009 and 2010 deserve the hype, and which do you think is stronger in the duo? Is 09 another 82? Is '10 another '61?

Which of the other years - maybe 06, 08, or 12 - is under the radar and underrated? Gilman is a big fan of the 08 for example.

Good question.
2006 is in the upper half of my favorite vintages since 82, the "light on its feet" vintage. The 2006 Palmer was magnificent.
Don't overlook 2007. The wines are lovely and well crafted, the HB and LMHB were beauties.
2008 is a quality vintage, I like it, but it lacks a wow factor.
The jury is still out for me on 2009. High alcohol, I'm sure it's just a style issue.
2010, of course, is the greatest vintage ever. 'Nuff said.
We liked the 2011s we had on the trip: Pontet Canet, Figeac, etc. Good depth.
I can't speak for the others, but 2012 was a revelation for me. I loved the soft pleasantness if the wines... Corbin, La Lagune, Pontet Canet, etc. Yum. And the LLC was breathtaking in its balance and, er, purity.
I actually kind of liked the 2013 La Lagune, it was certainly something different, and the 2013 Pontet Canet ranks well into the lower 90s for me.
I can give you absolutely no assessment of 2014.

I agree with Jim on the 2014. It is just too hard to judge now, at least for me.

2013 is poor; arguably the worst vintage since 1991. I am glad that I had a chance to taste some before I threw away money on even a single bottle. 2013 proves that even with the advances in wine making we have seen these last 30 years, no winemaker can make a high quality wine from crappy grapes. Most estates had the good sense not to serve us 2013. L-L almost declassified its 2013, then decided to make a little bit but put "Cabernet Sauvignon" on the label to warn consumers not to buy it expecting to get a real La Lagune.

2012 is better than expected, and 2011 is not bad.

2010 is fantastic, but these are wines that will require PATIENCE.

2009 at the lower levels is already drinking well. It is a fine vintage at all levels. It will probably be another 15 years before the 2010s surpass the 2009s.

2006-2008. I have not drunk enough of these vintages recently to make informed guesses.

What Jim and Bill said.

My pecking order would from worst to best:

2013, 2007, 2006, 2011, 2008, 2009, 2010

Who knows where 2014 will fit in. If you believe the hype it would come third. But I would reserve judgement because neither could I judge very well the vintage from the samples we tried.

My take is similar to Stefan's.

While different styles, 2009 and 2010 are at the top of the heap. I have no problem with the balance or ripeness of the 2009s but can see where they would turn off a traditionalist. Gross generalizations, but looking at the better classed growths, the 2010s will require more patience while the 2009s will start drinking well in another 5 years. But the 2010s will likely last much longer.

Ditto what's been said. 2009 and 2010 are stellar across the board but the big boys will require patience and some may not have enough years ahead of them to see them come to peak maturity. These have everything to be going strong well into the 40-50 yr mark.

2012 was the surprise for me. I was stopped in my tracks by how good the 2012 du Tertre was drinking now and prompted a two case purchase for entertaining over the next few years. The 2009 though blew the 2012 away though and was that much better in all respects. Corbin was lovely but tannins a little more present and unfortunately did not go with the Las Cases group to see what the hype on that 2012 was all about.

I'm not as sold on the 06 as some and would put it behind the 12, 08 and 11 which was also surprising. The 07s that we had seem to be drinking better than expected and are made for early drinking if the price is right. 2014 .....just can't comment like others and 2013 even if on super sale not worth the effort. Save your$$$.

Thanks for the feedback. Clearly, 09 and 10 are out in front.

I find it very interesting, Danny, that as much as you like the 2012 du Tertre, you think the 2009 is far superior. That's potentially very important. Overall, I am most fascinated by the 2009 vintage, partially because I find it a bit too ripe right now by and large (but I haven't tasted it widely yet as mentioned). 2009 is the most "Californian" vintage I've ever tasted, much more so than the 2003 was on release (which was more weird than truly ripe). Does this mean the 2009s will develop into some unusual, even special a la '82 with enough age like Parker maintains or do we buy the theory that great Bordeaux shouldn't taste good young and the 2009s will go off the rails down the line? I often think about Jacques' negative reaction to the 2009 GPL. Anyway, interesting stuff wine-wise.

I'm also surprised by some of the high scores I've seen on the 2011s. I even bought a few bottles of the 2011 Magdelaine, mainly cause Gilman loved it but also because 2011 was its final vintage. Bummer. Magdelaine is becoming one of my favorite chateau but it really seems to take a long time to come around, so I am mostly buying older vintages.

2013 is my son's birth year, but I'm shopping elsewhere for birthday wines-- I have a few 2013 Ridge Monte Bellos on pre-arrival and I'm keeping a look out for other long lived stuff from that year.

Great questions, Patrick. I've got almost 10 cases of various 2009s, and I'll be answering those questions sometime between 2020 and 2030. I've got less 2010s, about half of them lesser wines for short term drinking, but the bigger boys are going to stay buried a lot longer than the 2009s.

David,

The 2010 Pichon Baron, along with the 09s from PB,SHL and PC were definitely young but very approachable and I think they are both all about BALANCE. No issues trying one of a case ITNOS to see for yourself. I've got 10 cases of both 09/10 and the lesser 09s are putting wide grins on my wife's face and that's a very good thing!! These are beauties now and will be fabulous down the road. Tannins softer/finer in the 2010s but both years I think are over the top in a wonderful Bordeaux kind of way....Not Californian at all. Ripe fruit yes but the nuances in Bordeaux from the blends/terroir etc set them well apart from Cali Cabs.

I agree Danny. The ripe 2009s I had on release did not come across as Californian at all.

Right now, I would agree with Comte Flaneur for the general ranking. But the 2009 we tasted at du Tertre, SHL, PB and PC, make me wonder if 2009 is really second? Could be first as well.

Ian (or any one else), where would you put 2012? From our small sample, is it before or just after 2008? I did not taste many 2008 or 2011, but i try to guess that 2012 is slightly better than 2008.

Nic

Nic well spotted I omitted it by accident. Either before or after the 2008s.

1) 2010 - Ripe crunchyness. Beauties. Patience needed.
2) 2009 - Smooth, sexy, hedonistic wines. Don't think they won't last long(er) though.
3) 2008 - Surprise! Love the style, which seems a softer, easier combination of 09 and 10.

2007 isn't bad at all. Sometimes a touch too much acidity / balsamico, but I hardly ever came accross a wine without enough good fruit to please. Classic restrained.
2006 is fine, but various wines hardly show tannins. It's a lighter, gentle vintage. IMHO ready to drink.

Nicklasss wrote:Right now, I would agree with Comte Flaneur for the general ranking. But the 2009 we tasted at du Tertre, SHL, PB and PC, make me wonder if 2009 is really second? Could be first as well.

Ian (or any one else), where would you put 2012? From our small sample, is it before or just after 2008? I did not taste many 2008 or 2011, but i try to guess that 2012 is slightly better than 2008.

Nic

I agree with Ian on the pecking order for my preference...The only thing is I would put 2012 ahead of 2008 for right bank, but would put 2012 behind 2008 for left bank...